Tag Archives: non fallacious tu quoque

I’ve been wondering for a while about what exactly gets shown with tu quoque arguments. Is it that the premise is false, or no longer justified? Since it’s an ad hominem form of the argument, perhaps it is more just a case against the people speaking, perhaps that they don’t understand their own case or aren’t sincere. Or is it that they have a double standard. I think that, depending on the setup, these are all on the table. Though the last one, the attack on the ethos of the speaker on the other side using a double standard is the most likely and most argumentatively plausible.

Here’s why. When we charge tu quoque, it’s often a culmination of a series of argumentative exchanges. Sometimes over years. What we’ve got then is a lot of evidence about the person’s argumentative and intellectual character. The tu quoque is a kind of caught-red-handed moment you serve up to show that the person’s not an honest arbiter of critical standards. That they play fast and loose, and always to their own advantage, with evidence, degrees of scrutiny, and what’s outrageous or not.

The result was that the Republicans responded pretty harshly (including Trump’s tweet). But then they complained about the negativity in the media about the Presidency, and Reince Priebus (ex-RNC Chair, now Trump’s Chief of Staff) complained that

There’s an obsession by the media to delegitimize this president, and we are not going to sit around and let it happen. . . .You didn’t have Republicans questioning whether or not Obama legitimately beat John McCain in 2008

But wait, Amanda Terkel points out. Trump very famously was a birther. And so had been on a years-long de-legitimating campaign.

So what follows? A regular phenomenon with tu quoque arguments is that pointing out the hypocrisy is the end of the game. No conclusions are offered, and so it goes with the Terkel piece.

Again, my thoughts have been that a conclusion about the target proposition very rarely can be supported by the tu quoque, but some cases are relevant to the issue. Again, if the challenge is to the sincerity or the intellectual honesty of a speaker, especially with double-standards, there are conclusions we can draw. But does the fact that it’s politics make it worse or better?

So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.

Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.

We discussed this here. Well, today a bit of an update. There appears to be another reason to take the train. It's gets you from point A to point B. Here's Krugman yesterday:

So I think that it is my civic duty to report that yesterday, as I got off Amtrak 161 from Trenton to Washington — having spent 2 1/2 hours being made more amenable to collectivism, not to mention finishing another chapter for 3rd edition — I saw George Will leaving the business class car. (I usually prefer the coach quiet car.)

This is not the first time I've heard of George Will taking the train. I wonder if he spent a comfortable two and a half hours meditating on his practical inconsistency.